Dennenappelmoes wrote:
Is it a violation if a researcher can save millions of lives developing a new drug but violates a patent?

Perhaps a little off topic, but a patent doesn't stop people from using the knowledge. In fact, the point of the patent system is that a patent discloses the knowledge so that others can use it. There is nothing to stop the researcher from developing a new drug using a patented process. It's in the selling of the drug where the patent issue would arise (and there would have to be negotiations over how much of the profit the patent-holder would receive).

Mike

There was a documentary about all of this, the whole copyright issue, I forgot what it was called. It was very interesting and at some point it provided a very compelling story about how many lives could have been saved had the system been different, and how the system only benefits those at the top and turns the rest of society into 'criminals'. I really can't put forth any good arguments or summary here, I'm not an expert, just thought I'd mention it because documentaries like these can really change your opinion on government policy around. I know it did for me. I guess this will always be a difficult issue, as a Buddhist you'll probably want to know if there is "suffering" on behalf of the artist or whether downloading actually benefits the artist, and with all people, publishers, media companies and lobbies involved in this system it is quite difficult to determine. Reminds me of fish in the ocean dying because of some types of shampoo: Somtimes it is just beyond our ability to fully understand what our choices actually cause..

I wasn't saying that the current Patent system doesn't have all kinds of of problems. It obviously does stifle development of useful commercial products in many cases.

However, I think it's misleading to confuse laws on illegal downloading, etc (which prohibit you from obtaining copies of copyrighted you have not paid for), and the Patent system, which allows you free access to the patented idea, but says that you have to share any profit you make from using that information. I'm free to build something based on a patented idea (but not necessarily to profit from it).

Part of the reason I stopped downloading illegal stuff was because most of the stuff I downloaded was for entertainment purposes and served to be a big distraction in my life. Maybe that alone is enough of a reason to stop for some.

no illegal downloading does not. poor people must have access to that material as well. if they do not and are forced to download it illegally, then this is only because government has failed to procure relevant taxes to enable universal access.

A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

5heaps wrote:no illegal downloading does not. poor people must have access to that material as well. if they do not and are forced to download it illegally, then this is only because government has failed to procure relevant taxes to enable universal access.

What, exactly, is so necessary about these materials that people are forced to download illegally unless the government pays for them?

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26

5heaps wrote:no illegal downloading does not. poor people must have access to that material as well. if they do not and are forced to download it illegally, then this is only because government has failed to procure relevant taxes to enable universal access.

What, exactly, is so necessary about these materials that people are forced to download illegally unless the government pays for them?

without attractive sense objects it is not possible for a desire realm mind to experience happiness. this is one of the main reasons that practitioners renounce the desire realm and aim for form realm jhana--with jhana, happiness and other such positive mental factors utterly do not depend on the stimulus of external objects or circumstance . no family, no dogs, you do not even really need your own eyeballs if you happen to have a caretaker.

a good movie or a good book are among the best of attractive sense objects.

A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

My partner is an electronic musician. The moment a new album of his comes out, sometimes before, people have already started sharing it illegally online.
Would every single one of these people have paid for the music? Unlikely.
Would some have, and by not doing so, are deliberately avoiding paying for another's time and effort? I think so.

My partner does not give all of his music out freely (some yes).
Therefore people sharing it freely are doing so against his wishes, the "owner," and likely with the intention of self-interest.
I would be surprised if any person sharing his music genuinely believes he would want that done.
So we have several unwholesome intentions going at once, even if they're subtle.
And isn't this the primary source of dark kamma anyway?

For these reasons, I think illegal downloading is an example of violating the second precept.
Sorry if this has already been said.

In Buddhisme there Dhammapanatti a law been create togather like time, measurement, number etc.

in this law actualy there copyrigth law, example a book have copyright time, limit time regulary like 75 years after the author dies, and after 75 years the book would become public domain but this kind law be broken by the goverment and company greedy.

They create perpetual copyright (continuing copyright) so in the end this kind book would never become public domain, cause of these create chaos as we see right now.

what we see right now are result of the broken dhammapanatti in copyright laws, and the nature react to it.

I am sorry i made a mistake falseing or mix with usa and europe copyright law. (+70)

International law
+50 years after the author die.

example:
Ernest Hemingway books he died in 1961 +50 yr= 2011 so that end the copyright law, the ernest hemingway books it is aviable to public domain in 2012.

[quote]
Enters Public Domain in
Canada Sunday January 01, 2012
New Year's Day now marks public domain day, the day when new works enter into the public domain.

While Europe marks the entry of James Joyce into its public domain, Joyce has been in the public domain in Canada for the past 20 years, serving as an important reminder of the implications of the term of copyright. In Canada, the term is
life of the author plus 50 years, consistent with international law. In the U.S. and Europe, the term exceeds international requirements by adding an additional 20 years, meaning many works take two more decades to enter the public domain.

The Walt Disney Company lobbied extensively on behalf of the Act, which delayed the entry into the public domain of the earliest Mickey Mouse movies, leading to the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act". In addition to Disney, California congresswoman Mary Bono ( Sonny Bono 's widow and Congressional successor), and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives , said:
“
Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution . ... As you know, there is also [then- MPAA president] Jack Valenti 's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

pannatti dhamma, law of agrement in this case copyright law give to creator (author, musician) and public (public domain) to balance and fairness

when the law copyright been corupted and been broken so the trust of the agrement too.

it is natural when the broken copyright be force to people, the people would rebel and tried erase the broken copyright law.

we of course been caught in this war, each side would do propaganda and startegy to make us with one of the side, so important to know the root and source so we could stay idle not effectted by they propaganda and the startegy each side.

we must refer to the original concept of the copyright law who give the creator (author, musecian, etc) and public (public domain) balance and fairnes.

This law of copyright (book) after +50year the author die and so the book enter to public domain, no extended copyright law if this been extended public would think the copyright law have supresian, opresion and violate the public right. (so the trust of agrement been broken by the act[extending the copyright law])

now you know there a few diffrent download give free

so you know the download ebook are not illegal if it enter public domain, example Ernest hemingway books.

but you must be careful if the download free cause they would tried so you would not stay idle to accepted the broken copyright law and join the group to erase the broken copyright law.

Why does copyright remains (for 50 or more years) when the author of it has died?
What gives the right for someone else to make money off someone else's work?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

basicly copyright law origin to meet two side the owner of the creation would accept something from they creation in this case money for they living but there other hand there public who would not able acsess to this creation who maybe this kind person would able be inspire by this creation to create other creation to more inspire too public.

+50 years after the death, well if + 95 years/+ 300years after the death of the author did you still recodnize this person creation? and how far the diffrent culture gap after +95 years / +300 years after the dead of the author?

What gives the right for someone else to make money off someone else's work?

this quite difficult answer(i hope i not wrong answerd it) regular author work in a company, they pay the author for the works so company held the copyright laws of the work and of course they want get return for they investment so this copyright law limit it, the company for use the work forever, so this work would have sosial function when enter to public domain.

Good topic. Yeah ive often aked this aswell because there is a defenite grey area when it come to this. IMO P2P sharing is fine aslong as it isnt something unreleased to the public yet and the uploader is violating the copyright of the original producer. For example i often use the pirate bay to download books for my mom for her nook using torrents and peer2peer sharing which i find is acceptable aslong as the uploader isnt claiming to be the original producer. For a more everyday example its essentially the same as your friend purchasing a book from a book store and maybe a a month after he or she has read it they give it to you ...its pretty much the same just over the internet imo. Ive also discovered alot of great dhamma books that i probly wouldnt have discovered otherwise if it werent for p2p sharing..like ajahn cha's a tree in the forrest and some great dhamma talks aswell. just my 2 cents

K.Dhamma wrote:It's hard to say. I like to draw up analogies when things like this occur.

Your neighbor has an apple tree. You buy an apple from him. Seeds and all. Instead of throwing out the seeds you plant the seeds and in 5 years you have an apple tree of your own. You decide to give away your apples instead of sell them to anyone. So your neighbor doesn't get any money anymore from his apples because you used HIS apple seeds to grow your own tree.

Does this make it right? Depends on whether there was an known or even unmentioned agreement that you wouldn't use the seeds to put him out of business.

When you give away a CD or DVD was it because you felt compelled to let others enjoy the fruits of your labor/money? Was it to make the other person lose money because CD's and DVD's cost too much these days?

Are you looking for the CD or DVD online because you choose not to spend money to get it? Doesn't that err on the side of greediness? Are you under the assumption that the person offering it was giving it to you specifically? Are you the intended receiver?
Lots of questions.
I feel that anymore most people tend to ebb on the side of giving away because they don't want others to have to spend money. Then again, I can't read minds so I cannot conclude this absolutely.

I think it comes down to intention. On both the receiving side and giving side. If your intentions are deceitful, then yes it is an infraction. If a friend gives you a CD or DVD that is burned or allows you to copy it from his computer because he knows you really enjoy that particular one and gives it to you freely without asking for anything in return then I suppose it doesn't violate it. Again, I am a layperson and this is just my input. This is a rather interesting conversation though.

Just a footnote: Put it into context of a virtue. Sometimes that sheds some light on the truth of things.

Yeah to stay witrh ur analogy of the apple tree imo if the original owner of the apple tree rightfully owned the tree and it wasnt stolen then he has all the right to share it with whomever he wants. If i go to best buy and buy an elvis cd with my own money and then convert the tracks to mp3's and give the cd to my brother who knows i didnt steal the cd and bought it legally then i think its not a problem for either of us since we both are aware of our intentions and the result.

I propose this thread be renamed "the great illegal downloading as a potential Buddhist ethical issue thread"

In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.